Why are speedruns even allowed?

Yeah I wonder who would know how to better teach people how to play chess; a Grandmaster that has been playing for almost his whole life, or the dude who was been playing for a few months. You sound like a conceited loser tbh

First- proof? How do you know it was one person?

Second- the topic of whether or not chess is a sport is still very much debatable for either side. So it cannot be used as justification for your point.

If you go to a random naroditsky video, you will hear no mention of rating except the rating of the opponent- and the occasional, “ah, so we’re playing an X rated player here...” 

and just like how you claim that the educational part is a “false justification” to “kick lower rated people like a sociopath”, you have actually not said anything worth saying! I could also say that Apple making apple devices and having them sell at a higher price is “a way to kick poorer people in the pants like a bunch of psychopaths”! 

And furthermore, you have yet to prove that unrated matches with his subscribers are actually any more “educational” than the content he provides, with an actual basis instead of the teetering and unstable view of a moral viewpoint which nobody shares with you!

Pretty sure the actual youtubers have a better idea of what their viewers want than you do.

This thread is a joke. It have no qualifications to be expanding on this topic. Troll thread.

um i thought this was dead like a 5 months ago

lmaooo i posted it 5 months ago when i really didn't know and for some reaosn its active again

lol Krazee I was responding to cookout here who has kept your thread alive!

You seem to be under the assumption that I do not think chess is a sport, when in fact I have not said my stance. I said the topic is debatable. Just look up any "is chess a sport" thread on the forums and you'll see 2000 long threads. If that's not the definition of "debatable", then what is?

ok, that seems relatively reasonable. 

"Relatively reasonable" is an ironic statement, considering how this guy flaunts absolute truths left and right, how he knows what is right and good for independent entities operating within the confines of the law, like streamers and chess.com, and even for chess and sport in general haha. I have to give him >some< little credit though, there is something that could be debated about the ethics, purpose of and need for speedrunning. Philosophically,  I can easily imagine a good conversation on a topic like that, just like the Legalize movement, right to euthanasia, and similar can make for a good debate. His reasoning and putting blame on speedrunners for his bad competitive experience is pure bx though😂 But there is one thing I agree with him 100%, and that's Hikaru🤣🤣🤣 

There is a book I have called “Chess matter vs chess amateur”, great games for beginners to learn from. You see how a master takes apart a beginners moves.

Crying over this is beyond ridiculous. Pure troll motivations.

I'd say his motivations are coming from a different place. Nonetheless, the result is quite trollish😎

“The difference between a pro and amateur is simply money. Does someone play in prize money tournaments or get sponsored, vs not. Also, Skill level and rating have nothing to do with being competitive or not.”

…..what? lol.

Is it non sequiter day?

“Chess master vs Chess amateur” Shows how a master exploits amateur mistakes. This can be more useful than 2 masters playing because you won’t see how mistakes get exploited. The same thing can happen in a Naroditsky speed run.

If you are a beginner and all you look at is Carlsen v Caruana, you actually won’t learn very much. You also won’t learn much playing endless blitz against fellow beginners.

... and that's exactly what those who say chess is not a sport would say. They, too, would say that chess is "absolutely not a sport. It is not debatable". 

And therefore that makes the topic debatable.

You continue to conjure things up from nowhere.

Let's assume a historian says that president X was called names such as Y. Nobody would say that the historian believes that President X is actually a Y. And nobody would also say that the historian believes that President X is NOT a Y. Since the historian was simply stating a fact, you cannot draw out a subjective conclusion. 

And I have said simply that the matter is debatable, debatable because there is a strong backing for both sides.

For example: 

"Chess has been recognized as a sport by the international olympic committee, but is not recognized as a sport by many people because it does not include athleticism. By definition, a sport is an activity which the body is subject to physical activity." (link - bolavip tokyo 2020) And therefore, while mental strain leads to physical strain, the physical strain is not caused by actual physical exertion. And since this is all by definition, then yes there is an argument for both sides.

You appear to not understand what it means to be neutral, or to not give an opinion. I have not said whether or not I believe chess is a sport or not, except to deliver the facts I know.

And regarding speedruns, I believe that most people have no problem with it, and so I'm not turning back or anything. And anyone has a right be upset about slander.

And yet you continue to draw imaginary connections... perhaps you could be of use to the flat earth community. 

https://discord.gg/flatearth

You cannot prove that people who believe chess is not a sport think that speedruns are good.

You have also yet to prove that I am allied with the "chess is not a sport" side. From the beginning I simply said it was debatable, and have stuck to the same guns.

First sentence does not make much sense.

Speedruns are not sporting - looking at the comments section of many speedrun videos, I do not see any such views.

And once again you keep saying im trying to save face. What face? I haven't said anything incriminating about myseslf. I have been responding to each of your points, so let's go to down to the last one.

"You refuse to say that chess is a sport, therefore we should conclude that you believe it is not a sport". 

With such reasoning, Switzerland would not have been able to maintain its neutrality in WW2. Since the axis powers would say, "Switzerland, since you do not side with us, therefore you side with the allies!" while the allies say "Switzerland, since you do not side with us, therefore you side with the axis!"

Cool out “So you are literally contradicting the point of sports as we know it. You always want to play someone as good or slightly better of a similar nature to progress in competitive matches. “

A game of master vs amateur is more instructive. as you can study the game to see how mistakes are exploited. This has nothing to do with you playing other people at your level. This is about what sort of illustrative games can serve instructional purpose.

Studying a Carlsen/Caruana game won’t help you as much as Naroditsky vs Class C player. The class C player will make the mistakes your opponents will make and you will see how to exploit them. Learning value high.

Caruana won’t make the mistakes your opponent will make, you won’t even recognize it as a mistake. Learning value very little.

The audience finds the speed run entertaining also, and it adds to their viewers, else they wouldn’t do them. They know what their viewers want more than you do.

So 1 game out of 1000 is a mismatch, so what? And most people are happy to play a famous GM.